Your ‘definition’ of scientific consensus is simply bullshit. You probably had bad results in scientific topics (bad science teachers?); this will also explain why you’re so weak in scientific argumentation. Don’t be overwhelmed by your nightmares, there are good pharmacologic remedies.

You are apparently not aware of what a scientific theory is. The ‘phenomenon’ you advocate is impossible to observe without a sound explanation for it. If you refer to the best evidence for Wegener’s theory at the time, i.e., the common fossil assemblages in different continents, you can easily understand that there could be other scientific explanations for them (i.e., continental bridges). The evidences for continent drifting were not sufficient in the first half of the 20th century. The idea was suggestive but without evidences you cannot make science. As long as the evidences were found, the plate movements were accepted. Before this, the speculations are really geopoetry; sorry, your example is definitely wrong.

Yep, it’s very interesting. But you failed to remember that Wegener WAS wrong. The proposed mechanism for moving continents was wrong and tectonic plates are NOT continents. So the scientific consensus was right and he was wrong.
You chose the wrong example. Cheers!